Categories

26 Ways the Media
Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi ReportThis comes out of a Sharyl Attkisson
commentary from which I have condensed and omitted extraneous information. The (
page #'s ) you will see denote the pages of the report which is available
online. My personal observation of the report is that it is watered down in
order to exonerate...or appear to do so...Hillary Clinton from culpability and
remove the Benghazi roadblock from her path to becoming a legitimate candidate
for the Democrat's presidential ticket. And be aware that the report is
not the last word on Benghazi. B.O.H.I.C.A.JimIt neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”It specifically states that it is not the final word
on Benghazi.Yet national press outlets claimed all of the above about
the House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi released on Nov. 21.The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama
administration’s version of events,” though many
of the administration’s versions of events have been discredited or proven
incorrect.USA Today portrayed the report as a sweeping effort that
“cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and the Associated Press claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration
officials,” though it didn’t examine most aspects
of the administration’s actions regarding Benghazi. For example, the committee
did not attempt to dissect White House actions or decision-making. And it did
not generally “assess State Department or Defense Department activities” (page
4).What the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on
a narrow slice of Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report
largely defends the CIA.>>> Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals
Details of Alleged Document ReviewIt is nothing more or less than another in a series of
compartmentalized investigations into the Benghazi debacle.The House Armed Services Committee focused on actions of
the Pentagon, largely serving to defend military interests. The Accountability
Review Board focused on actions of the State Department, though it chose not to
interview some key players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.Each investigation occurred over a different time period
amid two years of evolving accounts by Obama administration officials as new
information filled in blanks or contradicted previous, official accounts. In
some instances, investigations produced findings that contradicted one another
or documentary evidence.And no single investigation on Benghazi to date has heard
from all relevant witnesses or had full access to complete
information.So why did some in the news media adopt the spin of
Democrats such as Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff, who claimed the
report “completely vindicated” the White
House?Some media even used the charged language of the Obama
administration, disparaging those investigating the many contradictions and
unanswered questions as “conspiracy theorists.”The Huffington Post claimed the Intelligence Committee
report “torched conspiracy theories.” AP and USA Today claimed it “debunked a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark
conspiracies.” Slate likewise stated that the
committee had “debunked Benghazi conspiracies.”The articles advance limited and sometimes inaccurate
representations of the committee report. They fail to acknowledge the countless
documented instances in which the Obama administration provided false or
conflicting information about Benghazi, and hid information entirely from public
view.ContradictionsAt times, the committee report—as it defends the
intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of
evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate
information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper.1) The committee concluded, “the CIA
ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi.” Yet security was
insufficient to prevent terrorists from overrunning the CIA Annex, killing two
of the four Americans who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2012.2) The committee found “no evidence” of
a “stand down order.” But that is at direct odds with testimony from some
eyewitnesses. Three security operators stated they were given a “stand down”
order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.3) The committee appeared to focus on
technical utterance of the words “stand down” and “order” rather than the spirit
of the allegation: that willing responders were delayed or prevented from
providing urgent help. For example, the committee acknowledged that CIA Annex
team members “wanted urgently to depart the Annex” to “save their State
Department colleagues” but that the chief of base in Benghazi “ordered the team
to wait” to assess the situation (page 21). Also, the committee didn’t address
the case of the Foreign Emergency Support Team in the United States, which began
“packing its bags” to respond to Benghazi, only to have the State Department
block its deployment.4) The committee found “no evidence” of
“denial of available air support” and stated that, “the CIA received all
military support that was available” (page 24). But testimony provided earlier
to the House Armed Services Committee acknowledged that the military could have
launched an F-16 fighter jet and decided against it.“The mentality of everybody was, [launching an F-16]
doesn’t make sense. … Now, in hindsight, 20/20, we know that there was another
attack at 5:15 in the morning,” U.S. Africa Command General Carter Ham
previously testified.In addition, the president’s principle military adviser,
Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, previously acknowledged in testimony to another
congressional committee that military aircraft could have buzzed the hostile
Benghazi crowd to try to scatter it.“So there is a potential you could have flown a show of
force and made everyone aware that there was a fighter airborne,” Roberson
conceded to the House Armed Services Committee.Further, there were U.S. military assets in Djibouti that
remained untapped. A former U.S. ambassador to East Africa stated, “The [Benghazi] compound
was under siege for almost nine hours. The distance of 1,900 miles is within the
range of the ‘combat ready’ F-15s, AC-130s and special forces.”5) The committee found “no evidence of
an intelligence failure.” Yet there was obviously an intelligence failure, since
terrorists bearing heavy arms and rocket-propelled grenades preplanned and
successfully executed multiple attacks on the Benghazi compound and
Annex.Another intelligence failure documented by the committee
is the flawed analysis by a Washington, D.C.-based CIA officer who reportedly
convinced Morell to advance the YouTube video narrative even though the CIA
station chief on the ground in Libya had said that was not the case.6) The committee accepted Morell’s claim
that the talking points were not on the agenda of a Sept. 15, 2012, White House
Deputies Committee meeting prior to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s advancing the
incorrect spontaneous protest narrative on Sunday TV talk shows (page 29).
However, internal emails show that Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes specifically convened the meeting to discuss various agencies’ disputes
about the talking points.7) The committee accepted Morell’s
testimony that changes to the talking points were “in no way due to White House
political influence” and were just “a reflection of how little we knew at the
time” (page 30). However, documents show the State Department had voluminous
information about terrorist links and had already notified Libya, in no
uncertain terms, that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible for the
attacks.Inconsistencies Though the Washington Post claimed the committee’s
findings were “broadly consistent with the Obama administration’s version of
events,” they differed in many substantive respects.1) The Obama administration initially
claimed no security requests were denied. But the committee confirmed the State
Department repeatedly denied security requests (page 16).2) The Obama administration initially claimed there was “a
robust American security presence inside the compound, including a strong
component of regional security officers.” But the committee found there was a
handful of State Department diplomatic security agents who were apparently
unarmed when attacked.3) The Obama administration repeatedly
blamed the attacks on a mob motivated by a YouTube video and initially claimed
there was no meaningful evidence of terrorist involvement. But the committee
stated that all of the Obama administration officials interviewed “knew from the
moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks
against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the
attacks were anything but terrorist acts” (page 25).4) The Obama administration initially claimed, in March 2013,
that government press officials made no changes to the Benghazi talking points.
But the committee found that CIA public affairs officials made three critical
changes to the talking points (page 30).President Barack Obama talks with
Ben Rhodes. (Photo: Amanda Lucidon/The White House5) Morell initially claimed he had no
idea who changed the Benghazi talking points. But the committee confirmed that
Morell was directly involved in making and overseeing key talking points changes
to remove mention of terrorism and al Qaeda.6) The Obama administration initially
claimed the attacks were an outgrowth of protests. But the committee found
“there was no protest” (page 2).“Exoneration”?Although USA Today claimed the committee “cleared the
Obama administration of any wrongdoing,” the actual report makes numerous
references to administration officials doing things wrong.1) The committee confirmed that the
Obama administration’s public narrative blaming the attacks on a YouTube video
was “not fully accurate.”2) The committee stated that the process
to develop the inaccurate talking points was “flawed” and “mistakes were
made.”3) The committee found that Morell
wrongfully relied on his incorrect analyst in Washington, D.C., instead of his
correct chief of station in Libya, who explicitly stated the attacks were “not
spurred by local protests” (page 27).Furthermore, the “Additional Views” appendix to the committee report,
submitted by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and three other Republicans, found
the following:4) Morell “operated beyond his role as
CIA deputy director and inserted himself into a policy-making and public-affairs
role” when he removed references to terrorism from the talking points (Appendix
1, page 7).5) Morell provided testimony that was
“at times inconsistent and incomplete” (Appendix 1, page 7).6) The Obama administration failed to
exert “sufficient effort to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice” (Appendix
1, page 8).7) The Obama administration’s response
to the attacks was marred by “inadequate interagency coordination” and “devoted
inadequate resources to this effort and lacked a sense of urgency” (Appendix 1,
page 8).8) Senior State Department officials,
including then-Secretary Clinton, placed U.S. personnel “at unnecessary risk” by
dismissing “repeated threat warnings” and denying requests for additional
security (page 2).9) Senior U.S. officials perpetuated the
“YouTube” narrative that “matched the administration’s misguided view that the
United States was nearing a victory” over al-Qaeda.10) The administration’s “failed
policies continue to undermine the national security interests” of the United
States.11) There was a “failure of senior U.S.
officials to provide for the defense of U.S. interests against a known and
growing terrorist threat.”12) The State Department “failed to
provide sufficient security for its facility in Benghazi” (page 3).13) The Obama administration perpetuated
a “false view of the terrorist threat” that “did not comport with the facts”
(page 4).Missing the MarkEven as some news reports stated that Republicans had in
essence “exonerated” the Obama administration on all counts, Chairman Rogers
attempted to correct the mischaracterizations.In an op-ed published Dec. 10, Rogers stated, “Some have
said the report exonerates the State Department and White House. It does
not.”He went on to state that his committee looked only at
narrow questions as they pertain to the intelligence community. For that reason,
he said, the committee did not interview key eyewitnesses from the Department of
Defense and the State Department.>>> Former State Dept. Official: Details of Maxwell’s Benghazi
Document Story ‘Ring True’It remains unclear how so much news reporting could miss
the mark as far as it did.One news article claimed the Intelligence Committee
report concluded Rice innocently relied on bad intelligence on Sept. 16 when she
advanced the spontaneous protest. Yet the actual report clearly states that the
committee has no idea what the White House communicated to Rice before she
presented the talking points.A news article unequivocally stated that “it was
intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call” on the
nature of the attacks. Yet the report is clear that it did not examine the role
of political appointees or figures in the White House, State Department or
Defense Department.Eight InvestigationsIn reporting on the House Intelligence Committee’s
Benghazi report, numerous news outlets headlined that there have been
seven investigations on Benghazi and that an eighth is underway—the House Select
Committee on Benghazi.The implication is that Benghazi has been more than
thoroughly examined and those who support continued inquiry are beating a dead
horse.Indeed, eight investigations might be overkill if each
had been comprehensive and duplicative, and had turned up no new information.
But each has uncovered new facts or different versions of facts as Obama
administration accounts have continue to evolve.The necessity of further investigation isn’t a function
of how many probes have been held, but of their depth and quality as well as the
contradictions unearthed and the quantity of outstanding questions. In those
respects, one could easily argue there haven’t yet been enough investigations
into Benghazi.Jim MorrisTwilight Imagery,
Inc.